o 
3- 


CP 

01 


12/9 
A]  69 


CO 


BANCROFT  LIBRARY 

I  5*73  8 

Archaeological 
Institute  of 
America 


THE  HISTORICAL  VALUE  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF 
CHILAN  BALAM 


PERHAPS  the  nearest  approach  in  the  New  World  to  a  re 
corded  aboriginal  history  was  achieved  by  the  Maya  peoples 
of  Central  America  and  Southern  Mexico,  who  have  left  be 
hind  them  hundreds  of  hieroglyphic  inscriptions  embodying  an 
elaborate  chronology.  The  early  Spanish  chroniclers  explicitly 
state  that  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan  possessed  historical  records,  at 
the  time  of  the  Conquest,  which  contained  not  only  the  reck 
oning  of  their  years,  or  chronologies  proper,  but  also  other 
ancient  matters,  such  as  the  occurrence  of  wars,  famines,  pes 
tilences,  and  hurricanes.  In  the  face  of  such  direct  evidence, 
it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  at  least  some  of  the  Mayas  possessed 
a  recorded  history,  preserved  in  their  picture  manuscripts 
which  were  accessible  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century. 

In  1542  the  Spaniards  under  Francisco  Montejo  effected  the 
permanent  occupation  of  Yucatan.  This  event,  as  it  were, 
sounded  the  death  knell  of  all  native  institutions.  The  Spanish 
priests  at  once  applied  themselves  to  the  task  of  converting  the 
heathen,  and  everything  pertaining  to  the  ancient  civilization 
was  speedily  obliterated.  Particularly,  hieroglyphic  manu 
scripts  were  zealously  ferreted  out  and  ruthlessly  destroyed. 

Diego  de  Landa,  the  second  Bishop  of  Yucatan,1  says  in  this 
connection,  "  We  found  a  great  number  of  books  in  these  char 
acters  (that  is,  in  hieroglyphics),  and  because  they  contained 
nothing  but  superstitions  and  lies  of  the  Devil,  we  burned 
them  all,  the  which  was  felt  keenly,  and  gave  them  (the 
natives)  pain." 

1  Relation  de  los  Cosas  de  Yucatan,  Diego  de  Landa,  Paris,  1864,  p.  317. 

American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  Second  Series.     Journal  of  the  toe 

Archaeological  Institute  of  America,  Vol.  XV  (1911),  No.  2. 


196  SYLVANUS  G.    MORLEY 

This  treatment  soon  had  its  desired  effect.  The  manners  and 
customs  of  former  times  passed  into  disrepute,  decay,  and  finally 
oblivion.  The  natives  abandoned  their  pagan  rites  and,  out 
wardly  at  least,  conformed  to  the  observances  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  Amidst  this  general  collapse  of  aboriginal  institu 
tions,  however,  and  in  spite  of  ecclesiastical  discouragement, 
there  arose  a  class  of  native  writings  called  The  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam,  which  were  destined  to  preserve  for  us  practi 
cally  all  that  we  now  know  of  the  ancient  history  of  Yucatan. 

These  manuscripts  were  written  in  the  Maya  language  with 
the  letters  of  the  Spanish  alphabet,  reenforced  here  and  there 
by  additional  characters  to  represent  sounds  wanting  in  Spanish. 
The  literary  instinct  of  the  Maya  people,  abruptly  checked  in 
purely  native  channels  of  expression  such  as  the  hieroglyphics, 
seems  to  have  sought  relief  in  this  new  writing,  which  had 
been  prepared  by  the  priesthood  to  facilitate  conversion.  This 
partially  Hispanicized  Maya  lent  itself  readily  to  the  expres 
sions  of  the  native  mind,  and  soon  there  came  to  be,  even  before 
the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  or  within  fifty  years  of  the 
Conquest,  quite  a  number  of  these  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  the 
works  of  native  waiters.  Each  one  was  distinguished  from  the 
others  by  the  addition  of  the  name  of  the  place  where  it  was 
written,  as  the  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Mani,  The  Book  of 
Chilan  Balam  of  Nabula,  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Tizimin, 
manuscripts  which  emanated  respectively  from  the  towns  of 
Mani,  Nabula,  and  Tizimin.  The  name  Chilan  Balam  was  the 
title  applied  by  the  Mayas  to  a  certain  class  of  their  priests  who 
taught  their  sciences,  appointed  their  holy  days,  offered  sacrifices, 
and  delivered  oracles.  A  free  translation  of  the  names  of  these 
books  would  therefore  be  :  "  The  Book  of  the  Priest  Sooth 
sayer  of  Mani,"  "  The  Book  of  the  Priest  Soothsayer  of  Nabula," 
and  so  on.  According  to  Dr.  D.  G.  Brinton,  the  contents  of 
these  native  productions  may  be  divided  into  four  classes: l  first, 
astrological  and  prophetic  matters;  second,  medical  recipes 
and  directions;  third,  post-conquest  history  and  Christian 
teachings ;  fourth,  ancient  chronology  and  history. 

Of  these,  the  last  only,  that  dealing  with  the  ancient  chro 
nology  and  history  of  Yucatan,  concerns  us  here. 

1  Essays  of  an  Americanist,  Daniel  G.  Brinton,  Philadelphia,  1890,  p.  259. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  CHILAN  BALAM  197 

Of  the  sixteen  books  of  Chilan  Balarn 1  which  have  survived 
the  vicissitudes  of  the  last  three  centuries,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  three  only,  the  Mani,  Tizimin,  and  Chumayel  manuscripts, 
contain  these  ancient  chronologies  or  historical  summaries. 
The  Mani  and  Tizimin  manuscripts  each  contain  one  of  these 
chronicles,  and  the  Chumayel  manuscript  three,  making  a  total 
of  five  in  all.  But  the  last  account  in  the  Chumayel  manu 
script  is  of  little  value  in  restoring  the  ancient  chronology  of 
Yucatan,  since  it  does  not  present  a  consecutive  succession  of 
time  periods  as  do  the  other  four,  but  only  an  alternation  of  cer 
tain  particular  periods,  notably  Katuns  4  Ahau  and  13  Ahau. 
Indeed,  as  Dr.  Brinton  has  pointed  out,2  it  does  not  appear  to 
be  a  chronicle  at  all,  but  rather  a  chant  to  refer  certain  inci 
dents  to  their  proper  katuns,  and  for  this  reason  it  has  not 
been  consulted  so  extensively  as  the  others. 

Maya  history  is  presented  in  these  chronicles  as  a  succession 
of  time  periods,  opposite  each  of  which  is  recorded  the  proper 
events,  if  any,  for  that  period.  These  records  partake  rather 
more  of  the  nature  of  historical  summaries  than  extended  nar 
ratives,  and  may  be  best  described  as  chronological  outlines  of 
the  principal  events  of  Maya  history.  The  unit  of  enumeration 
for  counting  time  in  them  was  a  period  of  seventy-two  hun 
dred  days,  called  by  the  Mayas  the  katun,  which  was  equal  in 
length  to  something  less  than  twenty  of  our  own  years.  Each 
katun  was  named  after  the  day  with  which  the  preceding  katun 
ended,  always  the  day  Ahau,  to  which  a  numerical  coefficient 
ranging  from  1  to  13  was  attached.  These  followed  one 
another  in  a  retrograding  order,  the  coefficient  of  each  being 
two  less  in  number  than  that  of  the  one  immediately  preceding. 
Katun  8  Ahau,  Katun  6  Ahau,  Katun  4  Ahau,  Katun  2  Ahau ; 
Katun  13  Ahau,  Katun  11  Ahau,  and  so  on,  until  after  Katun 
10  Ahau,  when  the  next  in  order  was  Katun  8  Ahau  again,  and 
the  sequence  repeated  itself.  This  method  of  fixing  a  date, 
barring  an  initial  leeway  of  about  twenty  years,  the  length  of 
a  katun,  insured  accuracy  within  a  period  of  thirteen  times 
nineteen  and  three-quarters  years,  or  two  hundred  and  fifty-six 
years.  This  must  necessarily  be  true,  since  any  given  katun 

1  Essays  of  an  Americanist,  Daniel  G.  Brinton,  p.  257. 

2  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  Philadelphia,  1882,  p.  177. 


198  SYLVAN  US   G.    MOXLEY 

could  not  recur  until  after  a  lapse  of  two  hundred  and  fifty-six 
years,  and  consequently  the  position  of  any  event  stated  as  hav 
ing  occurred  in  any  given  katun  was  fixed  within  that  length 
of  time.  Moreover,  as  long  as  the  sequence  of  the  katuns 
remained  unbroken,  and  the  sets  of  thirteen  katuns  followed 
each  other  without  interruptions  or  omissions,  accuracy  within 
a  much  greater  period  of  time  was  insured ;  in  fact,  as  long  as 
the  units  of  the  sequence  remained  consecutive. 

This  brings  us  to  a  consideration  of  the  most  severe  and 
damaging  criticism  which  has  been  levelled  against  the  chroni 
cles  of  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  as  reliable  sources  for  the 
reconstruction  of  Maya  history. 

In  some  places  in  the  chronicles  there  are  clearly  breaks  in 
the  order  in  which  the  katuns  follow  each  other.  For  example, 
in  one  place,  a  Katun  11  Ahau  is  followed  by  a  Katun  8  Ahau 
instead  of  Katun  9  Ahau;  and  again,  in  another  passage,  a 
Katun  1  Ahau  is  followed  by  a  Katun  6  Ahau  instead  of  Katun 
12  Ahau.  Other  instances  where  the  sequence  of  the  katuns  is 
similarly  interrupted  might  be  cited,  but  these  two  are  suffi 
cient  to  show  how  the  continuity  of  the  sequence  fails  at  times. 
The  question  at  once  arises,  How  are  these  breaks  in  the  order 
of  the  katuns  to  be  accounted  for  ?  How  have  they  arisen,  and 
how  may  they  be  obviated?  In  the  case  cited,  for  example, 
where  a  Katun  11  Ahau  is  followed  by  a  Katun  8  Ahau,  is  the 
intervening  gap  to  be  filled  by  the  missing  katuns,  9  Ahau, 
7  Ahau,  5  Ahau,  3  Ahau,  1  Ahau,  12  Ahau,  and  10  Ahau  ? 
Or,  are  we  to  regard  this  Katun  8  Ahau  merely  as  a  repetition 
of  some  former  Katun  8  Ahau  in  the  sequence,  and  the  katuns 
following  it,  until  Katun  11  Ahau  is  reached  again,  as  a  redupli 
cation  in  the  record?  One  of  these  two  conditions  must  necessa 
rily  explain  the  observed  breaks  in  the  sequence,  since  no  others 
are  possible.  A  careful  study  of  the  several  chronicles  has  con 
vinced  me  that  defects  in  the  record  are  due  to  both  of  these 
causes ;  that  sometimes  katuns  have  been  omitted,  and  again 
as  clearly  repeated ;  and  that  both  omissions  and  repetitions 
are  equally  responsible  for  the  present  interruptions  of  the 
sequence. 

Having  pointed  out  how  the  breaks  in  the  sequence  of  the 
katuns  have  arisen,  and  consequently  how  they  may  be  obviated, 


THE  BOOKS   OF  CHILAN  BALAM  199 

let  us  examine  some  of  those  points  which  tend  to  establish  the 
accuracy  of  the  chronicles.  The  strongest  recommendation  for 
the  chronicles  is  their  close  agreement  with  one  another,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  original  manuscripts  themselves  have 
never  been  accessible  for  study  and  comparison.  Indeed,  the 
only  available  texts  up  to  the  present  time  have  been  second^ 
hand  copies  of  the  originals,  while  the  English  translations 
based  upon  them  have  been  proved  to  be  misleading  and,  in 
some  cases,  inaccurate.  Yet,  in  spite  of  these  conditions  so 
pregnant  with  possibilities  for  error,  the  available  texts  exhibit 
a  similarity  of  detail  which  is  little  short  of  remarkable,  and  it 
is  highly  indicative  of  their  reliability  that  from  the  discovery 
of  Chichen  Itza  down  to  the  Spanish  Conquest,  a  period  of  about 
eleven  hundred  years,  there  is  always  at  least  one  of  the  chroni 
cles  which  carries  on  the  sequence  of  the  katuns  unbroken. 
Some  sixty  years  ago,  Dr.  Carl  Berendt  visited  Yucatan,  and 
while  there  copied  by  hand  as  many  of  the  ancient  manuscripts 
as  he  could  find,  among  others  a  number  of  The  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam.  After  his  death,  his  papers  came  into  the  pos 
session  of  Dr.  D.  G.  Brinton  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl 
vania  ;  and  this  eminent  Americanist,  realizing  the  extreme 
importance  of  some  parts  of  the  manuscripts  which  had  fallen 
into  his  hands,  translated  the  chronological  portions  and  pub 
lished  them,  together  with  an  extensive  commentary  of  his 
own,  as  The  Maya  Chronicles.  Until  very  recently,  at  least,  the 
Berendt  texts  and  the  Brinton  translation  of  them  have  been 
the  only  sources  for  a  comparative  study  of  the  several  chroni 
cles,  although  one  chronicle,  that  from  The  Book  of  Chilan 
Balam  of  Mani,  was  printed  some  seventy  years  ago  in  both 
Maya  and  English,  by  John  L.  Stephens  in  his  Incidents  of 
Travel  in  Yucatan.1  It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that 
here  is  a  ready-made  explanation  for  many  of  the  present  disa 
greements  between  the  texts  of  the  several  chronicles.  For  no 
matter  how  carefully  Dr.  Berendt  made  his  copies  from  the 
originals,  the  personal  equation,  nevertheless,  influenced  the 
final  result. 

Another  cause,  doubtless,  which  has  contributed  to  the  ob- 

1  Incidents  of  Travel  in  Yucatan,  John  L.  Stevens,  New  York,  1843,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  465  ff. 


200 


STLVANUS  G.    MORLEY 


served  disagreements  among  the  several  chronicles,  is  the 
inaccuracy  of  the  present  English  translation.  Mr.  C.  P. 
Bowditch,  for  example,  has  shown  that  the  Brinton  transla 
tion  of  the  names  of  the  katuns,  such  as  the  fifth  Ahau,  the 
third  Ahau,  and  the  first  Ahau,  is  incorrect,  and  that  the  num 
bers  should  have  been  translated  by  cardinals  instead  of  ordi 
nals,  as  five  Ahau,  three  Ahau,  and  one  Ahau.  This  difference, 
so  far  as  the  chronological  accuracy  of  the  texts  is  concerned, 
is  of  minor  importance,  but  it  would  appear  from  the  following 
that  more  vital  mistakes  may  have  been  made,  which  actually 
render  the  chronicles  contradictory  in  regard  to  events  of  the 
greatest  consequence. 

One  of  the  most  important  events  in  Maya  history  is  the 
foundation  of  Uxmal,  which  significant  circumstance,  strange 
to  say,  is  recorded  in  only  two  of  the  five  chronicles,  and  then 
with  a  disagreement  of  nearly  two  hundred  years.  It  is  diffi 
cult  to  understand  how  such  an  accurate  people  as  the  Mayas 
could  have  become  so  confused  in  regard  to  such  an  important 
event  as  the  foundation  of  their  second  largest  city,  as  to  have 
assigned  to  it  dates  differing  from  each  other  by  nearly  two 
hundred  years.  The  accompanying  parallel  shows  the  parts  of 
the  Mani  and  Tizimin  chronicles  which  deal  with  the  founda 
tion  of  Uxmal,  arranged  side  by  side,  the  former  on  the  left, 
the  latter  on  the  right. 


MANI  MANUSCRIPT1 

Katun  8  Ahau  Chakanputun  was 
abandoned. 

Katun    6  Ahau 

Katun  4  Ahau  Two-score years(two 
katuns)  had  passed 
when  "they" 
came  and  estab 
lished  their  homes 
a  second  time  and 
they  lost  Chakan 
putun. 

Katun  2  Ahau  Ahcuitok  Tutul  Xiu 
founded  Uxmal. 

Katun  13  Ahau 

Katun  11  Ahau 


TIZIMIN  MANUSCRIPT2 

Katun  8  Ahau  Chakanputun  was 
abandoned. 

Katun    6  Ahau 

Katun  4  Ahau  Two-score  years  (two 
katuns)  and 
"  they  "  came  and 
established  their 
houses  a  second 
time  when  they 
lost  the  road  to 
Chakanputun. 

Katun    2  Ahau 

Katun  13  Ahau 
Katun  11  Ahau 


1  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brintou,  pp.  96,  102. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  139,  140,  145,  146. 


THE  BOOKS   OF  CHILAN  BALAM 


201 


MANI  MANUSCRIPT 
Katun  9  Ahau 
Katun  7  Ahau 
Katun  5  Ahau 
Katun  3  Ahau 
Katun  1  Ahau 
Katun  12  Ahau 
Katun  10  Ahau 


TIZIMIN  MANUSCRIPT 


Ten-score  years  (ten 
katuns)  they 
ruled  with  the 
governor  of  Chi- 
chen  Itza  and 
Mayapan. 


Katun 

Katun 

Katun 

Katun 

Katun 

Katun  12 

Katun  10 


Ahau 
Ahau 
Ahau 
Ahau 
Ahau 
Ahau 
Ahau 


Ahzuitok  Tutul  Xiu 
founded  Uxmal. 
Ten-score  years 
(ten  katuns)  had 
passed  when  they 
established  the  ter 
ritory  of  Uxmal. 


The  striking  similarity  between  these  two  versions  is  at  once 
apparent.  Both  accounts  agree  that  Chakanputun  was  aban 
doned  in  a  Katun  8  Ahau.  Both  agree,  further,  that  in  the 
two  katuns  next  following,  Katuns  6  Ahau  and  4  Ahau,  the 
Itzas,  here  referred  to  as  "they,"  returned  to  their  former 
homes  and  established  themselves  there  a  second  time.  In 
the  katun  next  following,  Katun  2  Ahau,  the  Mani  manuscript 
records  the  foundation  of  Uxmal  by  a  certain  Ahcuitok  Tutul 
Xiu.  The  corresponding  katun  in  the  Tizimin  manuscript, 
however,  has  no  entry  against  it;  and  from  this  point  the 
record  in  both  chronicles  is  silent,  save  for  the  bare  enumera 
tion  of  the  intervening  katuns,  until  Katun  10  Ahau  is  reached. 
The  Mani  manuscript  records  after  this  Katun  10  Ahau  that 
for  the  two  hundred  years  just  past,  that  is,  since  the  founda 
tion  of  Uxmal,  in  Katun  2  Ahau,  the  governors  of  Uxmal, 
Chichen  Itza,  and  Mayapan  had  ruled  together.  The  entry 
opposite  the  corresponding  katun  in  the  Tizimin  manuscript 
is  noteworthy.  It  states  that  a  certain  Ahzuitok  Tutul  Xiu 
founded  Uxmal,  and  that  two  hundred  years  had  passed  when 
this  happened.  The  identity  of  this  name  with  that  given  by 
the  Mani  manuscript  to  the  founder  of  Uxmal  can  hardly  be 
doubted,  since  the  two  differ  from  each  other  by  one  letter 
only,  and  consequently  both  probably  refer  to  one  and  the  same 
individual. 

This  developes  an  exceedingly  close  similarity  between  the 
two  versions.  Both  accounts  agree  as  to  the  founder's  name ; 
both  agree  as  to  the  sequence  and  names  of  the  katuns  in  this 


202  SYLVANUS  G.   MORLET 

part  of  the  record,  and  finally  both  agree  as  to  a  two  hundred 
years  summary  after  Katun  10  Ahau.  In  fact,  the  only  actual 
disagreement  between  the  two  accounts,  so  far  as  the  founda 
tion  of  Uxmal  is  concerned,  is  one  of  date,  the  Mani  manu 
script  setting  the  event  two  hundred  years  in  advance  of  the 
time  given  in  the  Tizimin  manuscript.  In  view  of  such  close 
similarity  with  regard  to  the  other  details,  it  would  seem  as 
though  this  disagreement  in  date  might  perhaps  be  apparent 
rather  than  real,  and  consequently  capable  of  explanation.  Let 
us  examine  once  more  the  entry  in  the  Tizimin  manuscript  deal 
ing  with  this  event.  According  to  both  the  Berendt  text  and 
the  Brinton  translation,  the  first  part  of  the  entry,  "  Ahzuitok 
Tutul  Xiu  founded  Uxmal,"  is  exactly  the  same  in  wording  as 
the  entry  in  the  Mani  manuscript  against  Katun  2  Ahau.  The 
latter  part  of  the  entry  in  the  Tizimin  version  reads  as  follows  : 
"  Ten-score  years  had  passed  when  they  established  the  terri 
tory  of  Uxmal."  It  will  be  noted  that  this  passage  is  so  worded 
that  a  change  in  the  translation  of  but  a  single  word  is  suffi 
cient  to  reconcile  the  two  versions  with  each  other,  and  to  bring 
them  into  agreement  regarding  the  date  of  this  important  event. 
If  the  adverbial  particle  "  ca  "  could  be  translated  "  since  "  in 
stead  of  "  when,"  as  given,  the  entry  in  the  Tizimin  manuscript 
would  read  :  "  Ahzuitok  Tutul  Xiu  founded  Uxmal.  Ten-score 
years  had  passed  since  they  established  the  territory  of  Uxmal." 
And  counting  back  these  ten-score  years  we  reach  the  same 
Katun  2  Ahau  against  which,  in  the  Mani  manuscript,  is  re 
corded  the  same  event,  and  the  two  texts  no  longer  contradict 
each  other. 

It  is  a  well-known  trait  of  American  languages,  that  their 
adverbial  particles  have  a  wide  range  of  meanings,  and  that 
such  meanings  as  "  when "  and  "  since "  are  well  within  the 
scope  of  a  single  particle.  For  example,  in  the  Tiwa  language 
as  spoken  at  Taos,  New  Mexico,  the  element  "  xan  "  signifies : 
then,  when,  whenever,  since,  because,  therefore,  you  know.1 
Indeed,  examples  of  the  wide  range  of  meanings  which  some 
particles  may  cover  might  be  multiplied  throughout  American 

1  *  An  Introductory  Paper  in  the  Tiwa  Language,  Dialect  of  Taos,  New 
Mexico,1  Papers  of  the  School  of  American  Archaeology,  No.  14,  by  John  P. 
Harrington. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  CHILAN  BALAM  203 

linguistics.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  Maya  particle 
"  ca "  might  possibly  be  translated  "since"  without  undue 
violence  to  the  native  construction,  and  consequently  that  the 
disagreement  in  regard  to  the  date  of  the  foundation  of  Uxmal 
between  the  Mani  and  Tizimin  texts  might  be  obviated.  This 
question,  however,  is  purely  one  of  linguistics,  and  is  capable 
of  a  very  definite  answer  one  way  or  the  other.  This  suggestion 
is  only  advanced  here  as  a  possible  explanation  for  the  observed 
disagreement  in  the  Brinton  texts. 

Apart  from  this  question  of  errors,  however,  which  may  be 
due  to  inaccurate  texts  or  faulty  translations,  the  chronicles 
have  in  themselves  many  characteristics  which  make  for  their 
reliability.  In  the  first  place  two  of  the  chronicles  at  least, 
those  from  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Mani 1  and  Tizimin,2 
were  composed  before  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
probably  by  natives  who  had  grown  to  manhood  before  the  Con 
quest,  and  who  had,  therefore,  had  ample  opportunity  to  acquire 
a  first  hand  knowledge  of  their  history  before  the  light  of  the 
ancient  learning  had  flickered  out.  Says  Dr.  Brinton  in  this 
connection:3  "Relying  oh  their  memories,  and  no  doubt  aided 
by  some  of  the  ancient  hieroglyphic  manuscripts  carefully 
secreted  from  the  vandalism  of  the  monks,  they  (the  natives) 
wrote  out  what  they  could  recollect  of  their  national  literature." 
The  writers  of  these  native  books  were  probably,  in  most  cases, 
the  elders  of  the  villages,  and  as  such  vividly  remembered  the 
pre-conquest  days ;  moreover,  they  may  have  had,  as  Dr. 
Brinton  suggests,  some  of  their  old  hieroglyphic  manuscripts 
containing  the  very  chronicles  which  they  copied  into  The  Books 
of  Chilan  Balam.  At  all  events,  their  conditions  of  life  were 
such  that  their  authorship  of  the  chronicles  considerably  en 
hances  the  value  of  these  native  manuscripts  as  historical  sources. 

Another  equally  strong  recommendation  in  favor  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  chronicles,  is  their  general  agreement  with  each 
other,  which,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  is  capable  of  being  ex 
tended  even  further  than  the  Brinton  translation  indicates. 
This  harmony  of  record  appears  to  advantage  in  the  closing 
katuns  of  the  sequence,  Katuns  4  Ahau,  2  Ahau,  13  Ahau, 

i  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  p  70.  2  Ibid.  p.  136. 

a  Ibid.  p.  68. 


204  SYLVANUS  G.    MORLEY 

11  Ahau,  9  Ahau,  and  7  Ahau.  Three  of  the  four  chronicles 
agree  that  in  this  Katun  4  Ahau  there  was  a  pestilence  and 
general  death,  the  remaining  chronicle  having  no  entry  for  the 
period.  Three  out  of  the  four  agree  that  a  certain  native  chief 
died  in  Katum  13  Ahau,  the  remaining  account  placing  this  same 
event  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  next  katun.  All  four  agree 
that  the  Spaniards  arrived  in  Katun  11  Ahau,  that  Christianity 
was  introduced  and  Bishop  Toral  arrived  in  Katun  9  Ahau,  and 
finally  that  Bishop  Landa  died  in  Katun  7  Ahau.  This  agree 
ment  is  remarkable,  and  indicates  that  the  natives  were  able  to 
date  events  in  their  own  system  of  chronology  with  perfect  ease 
and  accuracy;  another  strong  point  in  favor  of  the  reliability 
of  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balarn  as  sources  for  the  reconstruction 
of  Maya  history. 

The  early  Spanish  historians  of  Yucatan,  Lizana,  Larida, 
Herrera,  and  Cogolludo,  were  almost  exclusively  churchmen, 
and  busied  themselves  more  with  things  spiritual  or  Spanish 
than  with  things  temporal  or  native.  Conquest,  conver 
sion,  church  and  civil  organization,  and  contemporary  hap 
penings  interested  them  far  more  than  the  ancient  history  of 
a  race  whose  religion  they  regarded  as  the  handiwork  of  the 
Devil,  and  whose  records  they  destroyed  whenever  able.  And 
yet,  scattered  here  and  there  throughout  the  early  Spanish 
histories,  are  many  passages  which  substantiate  the  native 
chronicles  and  corroborate  the  native  chronology.  It  would 
take  us  too  far  afield  here  to  more  than  briefly  note  the  pres 
ence  of  these  corroboratory  passages  in  the  early  Spanish 
writers ;  the  subject  is  comprehensive  and  involves  lengthy  com 
parisons,  which  lie  beyond  the  limits  of  the  present  paper.  It 
must  suffice  in  this  connection,  therefore,  merely  to  call  atten 
tion  to  the  fact  that  the  writings  of  Lizana,  Landa,  Cogolludo, 
Herrera,  and  Villagutierre  contain  passages  which,  so  far  as 
they  go,  confirm  the  accuracy  of  the  native  versions  of  the 
same  events. 

It  appears  to  me,  in  conclusion,  that  the  chronicles  from  The 
Books  of  Chilan  Balam  have  much  to  recommend  them  as  relia 
ble  sources  for  the  reconstruction  of  Maya  history.  When 
these  records  fail  to  agree,  which  is,  the  exception  rather  than 
the  rule,  it  has  been  shown  that  in  some  cases,  at  least,  disa- 


THE   BOOKS   OF  CHILAN  BALAM  205 

greement  may  have  arisen  from  errors  in  copying  or  translation, 
for  which  the  original  texts  themselves  cannot  be  held  respon 
sible.  Again  it  has  been  shown  that  in  age,  authorship,  sub 
ject  matter,  and  general  agreement,  these  native  chronicles  are 
such  that  they  constitute  their  own  best  guarantee  of  truthful 
ness.  In  view  of  these  facts  and  one  other,  that  they  are  almost 
the  only  native  sources  left  to  us  for  the  recovery  of  the  main 
events  of  Maya  history,  we  are  justified  in  accepting  them  for 
what  they  themselves  purport  to  be  :  The  Maya  Chronicles. 

There  follows  below,  the  outline  of  Maya  history  as  presented 
by  the  chronicles  from  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  augmented 
here  and  there  by  additions  from  early  Spanish  sources. 

OUTLINE  OF  MAYA  HISTORY 

In  the  records  of  most  peoples  there  is  a  point  beyond  which 
history  does  not  extend,  but  from  which  mythology  carries 
back  the  annals,  usually  to  a  divine  origin  of  man.  There  are 
strong  indications  that  the  first  entries  in  the  Maya  chronicles 
are  of  such  a  nature,  and  that  the  events  they  record  belong  to 
the  realm  of  fancy  rather  than  fact. 

Of  the  Maya  chronicles,  however,  only  two,  those  from  the 
Mani  and  Tizimin  manuscripts,  go  back  into  a  past  which  seems 
to  be  at  all  unsubstantial;  the  others  begin  with  later  events 
which  are  clearly  of  an  historical  nature.  There  are  three 
events  in  these  first  entries  of  the  Mani  and  Tizimin  manu 
scripts  of  which  the  first  is  probably  wholly  and  the  other  two 
largely  fictitious : 

1.  The  departure  from  the  House  Nonoual,  the  home  of  the  Tutul  Xiu 

in  the  Land  of  Tulapan  from  Zuiva  at  the  west. 

2.  The  arrival  under  Holon  Chantepeuh  at  the  Land  of  Chacnabiton. 

3.  The  arrival  under  Ahmekat  Tutul  Xiu  at  the  Land  of  Chacnabiton. 

Concerning  the  opening  event,  which  is  recorded  only  in  the 
Mani  manuscript,  Dr.  Brinton  has  shown 1  that  three  out  of  the 
four  proper  names  with  which  it  deals,  Nonoual,  Tulapan,  and 
Zuiva,  are  not  Mayan  at  all,  but  are  purely  Nahuatl,  and  that 
furthermore  they  belong  to  Nahuatl  mythology  and  not  to 
Nahuatl  history.  They  are,  in  fact,  identical  with  three  locali- 
1  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  pp.  109  ff. 


206  SYLVANUS   G.    MOELEY 

ties  in  the  Quetzalcoatl  legend  of  Nahuatl  mythology.  The 
presence  of  Nahuatl  mythological  place-names  in  the  earliest 
entry  of  the  Maya  Chronicles  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  discredit 
the  historical  character  of  the  passage  in  which  they  appear. 
Their  occurrence  may  perhaps  be  explained  on  the  ground  that 
this  entry  was  fabricated  at  a  late  date  when  the  Mayas  had 
come  under  Nahuatl  influence,  i.e.,  during  the  Fourth  Period. 
The  presence  of  the  name  Tutul  Xiu  in  this  same  entry  may  be 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  Mani  manuscript  was  compiled  at  the 
Xiu  capital,  arid  that  it  is  a  result  of  local  pride  and  the  desire 
to  assign  extreme  antiquity  to  the  Xiu  ancestry. 

The  second  event  may  have  some  historic  foundation.  Holon 
Chantepeuh  may  well  have  been  one  of  the  early  Maya  leaders, 
perhaps  one  of  the  band  which  settled  at  Bakhalal,  and  Chacna- 
biton  probably  was  the  name  of  some  well-known  terrestrial 
locality.  The  chief  objection  to  this  entry,  and  one  which 
applies  to  the  next  as  well,  is  the  break  in  the  sequence  of  the 
katuns  at  this  point  in  the  record,  which  makes  it  difficult  to 
assign  these  events  to  their  proper  positions  in  Maya  history. 

The  third  event,  in  addition  to  the  uncertainty  of  its  true  posi 
tion  in  Maya  history,  is  doubtful  on  another  account.  Bishop 
Landa  distinctly  states  that  the  Tutul  Xiu  were  comparatively 
late  comers  to  Yucatan  and  that  for  this  reason  the  older  inhabi 
tants  of  the  country  looked  down  upon  them.  Moreover,  the 
chronicles  show  that  Uxmal,  the  Xiu  capital,  was  not  founded 
until  comparatively  late  (at  the  beginning  of  the  Third  Period), 
consequently  mention  of  the  Tutul  Xiu  in  such  an  early  event  as 
the  third  may  simply  be  a  late  interpolation  in  the  record  due 
again  to  local  pride  in  the  antiquity  of  ancestry. 

The  fourth  episode  in  the  chronicles  is  the  Discovery  of 
Bakhalal  or  Ziancaan  in  Katun  8  Ahau  or  6  Ahau,  and  with  this 
event  Maya  history  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  having  emerged 
from  its  mythological  beginnings,  and  subsequent  events  may  be 
accepted  as  historical  facts.  To  begin  with,  Bakhalal  is  the  first 
place-name  mentioned  in  the  chronicles  which  still  attaches  to  a 
perfectly  definite  and  well-known  locality.  This,  together  with 
the  fact  that  the  present  place  of  the  same  name  is  situated  on 
the  southeastern  frontier  of  Yucatan,  suggests  that  Bakhalal 
was  one  of  the  first  stopping-places  of  the  Mayas  in  the  new 


BANCROFT  LIBRARY 

THE  BOOKS   OF  CHILAN  BALAM  207 

country  after  their  departure  from  their  former  homes  some 
where  to  the  south.  Corroboratory  evidence  that  Yucatan  was 
colonized  from  the  east  may  also  be  found  in  several  of  the 
early  Spanish  writers,  notably  Lizana. 

With  the  discovery  and  settlement  of  Bakhalal,  then,  the  his 
tory  of  the  Mayas  in  Yucatan  properly  begins;  and  since  our 
sources  emanate  from  those  whose  tenure  of  the  country  had 
already  exceeded  a  thousand  years,  this  important  event  must 
have  seemed  to  them,  as  the  centuries  rolled  by,  an  indestructible 
starting-place  which  the  mists  of  tradition  could  not  obscure 
nor  the  forgetfulness  of  men  and  the  failure  of  records  push 
forward.  It  marked  the  point  beyond  which  mythology  could 
not  advance,  and  before  which,  going  backward,  they  did  not 
have  to  look  to  divine  sources  for  their  origin.  The  occupa 
tion  of  Bakhalal,  according  to  the  chronicles,  lasted  for  about 
sixty  years  only,  during  Katuns  4  Ahau,  2  Ahau,  and  13  Ahau, 
which,  following  my  correlation  of  Maya  and  Christian  chro 
nology,1  correspond  to  the  period  460-520  A.D.  No  mention 
is  made  of  the  contributary  causes  which  led  to  the  abandon 
ment  of  Bakhalal.  It  is  possible  that  this  locality  may  have 
been  unhealthful  and  fever-ridden  in  former  times  as  it  is  to-day, 
and  that  an  unusually  high  death  rate  awakened  the  people 
to  the  deadly  character  of  their  new  home.  At  all  events,  the 
city  was  abandoned  as  soon  as  another  suitable  location  could 
be  found.  As  one  chronicle  puts  it:  "  In  these  years  that  they 
ruled  Bakhalal,  it  occurred  then  that  Chicheii  Itza  was  dis 
covered,"  2  showing  apparently  that  the  search  for  a  new  home 
was  still  being  prosecuted. 

At  the  beginning  of  Katun  11  Ahau,  or  about  520  A.D., 
Bakhalal  was  abandoned  and  Chichen  Itza,  destined  to  become 
the  greatest  city  in  the  new  land,  was  founded.  Here  for  the 

11  The  Correlation  of  Maya  and  Christian  Chronology,'  Sylvanus  Griswold 
Morley,  Papers  of  the  School  of  American  Archaeology,  No.  11.  A.J.A.  XIV, 
1910,  pp.  193-204.  The  dates  in  the  Christian  era  assigned  to  the  several  events 
of  Maya  history  here  presented  are  not  fixed  with  certainty.  Other  correlations 
of  Maya  and  Christian  chronology  have  been  proposed  by  Senor  Pio  Perez, 
Professor  Eduard  Seler,  Mr.  C.  P.  Bowditch,  and  Mr.  J.  T.  Goodman,  no  two  of 
which,  however,  agree.  In  the  article  above  quoted,  I  have  set  forth  the  reasons 
which  led  me  to  adopt  the  correlation  therein  suggested. 

2  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  pp.  96  and  101. 


208  SYLVAN  US   G.    MOELET 

first  time  the  people  whose  wanderings  we  have  been  following 
have  a  name  applied  to  them.  They  are  called  the  "  Itzas3' 
and  their  capital  "  Chichen  Itza,  the  Mouths  of  the  Wells  of 
the  Itzas,"  after  the  two  great  natural  wells  around  which  the 
city  grew  up.  For  one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  or  until  the 
close  of  Katun  1  Ahau,  640  A.D.,  the  Itzas  occupied  this  site. 
The  chronicles  give  nothing  as  to  the  details  of  this  period,  and 
but  little  more  concerning  the  causes  which  brought  about  its 
closing  event,  the  abandonment  of  Chichen  Itza.  One  account 
says  that  the  city  was  destroyed,  while  the  others  merely  men 
tion  the  fact  that  it  was  abandoned.  With  this  event  The  First 
Historical  Period  of  the  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  closes. 

In  point  of  archaeological  importance  this  period  is  probably 
surpassed  by  no  other.  During  its  course,  but  particularly  in 
the  latter  part  of  it,  the  Mayas  were  called  upon  to  face  new 
conditions  of  life  and  to  grapple  with  problems  arising  out  of  a 
somewhat  new  and  unfamiliar  environment.  The  reaction  of 
this  environment  on  the  old  civilization  makes  the  period  one 
of  extreme  importance  in  the  study  of  the  Maya  culture.  It 
lasted  from  9-15-0-0-0  to  10-4-0-0-0  in  Maya  notation,  and  in 
cluded  within  its  span  the  eclipse  of  Copan,  Quirigua,  Seibal, 
Yaxchilan,  Tikal,  and  Naranjo,  and  the  rise  of  Chichen  Itza. 
In  a  word,  it  witnessed  the  transference  of  power  from  the 
south  to  the  north  and  the  passing  of  the  Old  Empire  and  the 
birth  of  the  New. 

The  Second  Period  opens  with  "  The  Holy  Men  of  the  Itzas," 
as  they  are  called  in  one  of  the  accounts,  in  search  of  new 
homes  which  they  find  after  wanderings  covering  sixty  years. 
In  Katun  6  Ahau,  700  A.D.,  a  land  called  Chakanputun  was 
seized  and  occupied  by  a  force  consisting  of  thirteen  divisions 
of  warriors.  As  was  the  case  with  Bakhalal  and  Chichen  Itza, 
the  two  place-names  previously  mentioned  in  the  chronicles,  it 
has  been  possible  also  to  associate  Chakanputun  with  a  definite 
geographical  locality.  There  is,  and  was  at  the  time  of  the 
Spanish  Conquest,  a  place  on  the  western  coast  of  Yucatan  not 
far  from  Campeache  called  Champoton.  It  was  probably  some 
where  in  this  vicinity  that  the  Itzas  settled  after  their  long 
wandering.  The  fact  that  every  place-name  mentioned  in  the 
chronicles  beginning  with  Bakhalal  may  be  referred  to  a  well- 


THE  BOOKS   OF  CHILAN  BALAM  209 

known  locality  bearing  the  same  name  to-day,  where  more  or 
less  extensive  ruined  remains  have  been  found,  is  of  itself  a 
strong  indication  that  the  chronicles  are  histories  and  not 
merely 'imaginative  narratives. 

That  the  Itzas  were  obliged  to  seize  Chakanputun  would 
seem  to  imply  that  it  was  held  by  some  hostile  people,  though 
no  clew  as  to  their  identity  is  given.  After  this  event,  there  is 
nothing  further  recorded  for  the  next  two  hundred  and  sixty 
years,  during  which  we  are  left  to  infer  that  the  Itzas  remained  in 
possession  of  Chakanputun.  In  Katun  8  Ahau,  about  960  A.D., 
an  unexpected  catastrophe  abruptly  set  the  Itzas  wandering 
again,  and  terminated  this  period.  The  Second  Chronicle  from 
The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Chumayel  thus  records  this  event : 
"  In  this  katun  (Katun  8  Ahau)  perished  Chakanputun  by  fire, 
which  destroyed  it  quickly,  and  suddenly  consumed  it." 1 
Again  the  Itzas  were  compelled  to  seek  a  new  home,  or,  as 
another  chronicle  vividly  portrays  it  :  "  In  this  katun  those  of 
the  Itza  were  under  the  trees,  under  the  boughs,  under  the 
branches  to  their  sorrow."2  With  this  event  the  Second 
Historical  Period  of  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  comes  to  an 
end,  640-960  A.D. 

Since  the  original  sources  themselves  are  silent  with  regard 
to  the  events  of  this  period,  any  attempts  to  fill  such  an  hiatus 
in  the  record  must  necessarily  be  only  suggestive.  I  consider 
it,  however,  not  improbable  that  during  the  sojourn  at  Chakan 
putun  the  Initial  Series  method  of  counting  time,  a  heritage 
from  the  older  civilization  of  the  South,  fell  into  disuse.  The 
latest  Initial  Series  date  known,  one  in  the  Dresden  Codex, 
falls,  according  to  my  correlation,  within  this  very  Katun  8  Ahau 
in  which  Chakanputun  was  abandoned.  The  subsequent  wan 
derings  of  the  Itzas  and  the  fading  recollections  of  their  former 
homes,  the  latest  of  which  at  this  time  was  fully  four  hundred 
years  behind  them,  may  possibly  account  for  its  discontinuance. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  Initial  Series  did  not  long  survive  the 
transplanting  of  the  Maya  culture  in  Yucatan,  but  gave  way 
to  an  abbreviated  method  of  counting  time.  Along  with  many 
another  product  of  the  older  civilization,  doubtless  it  fell  into 
disuse  under  the  pressure  of  changing  conditions, 
i  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  pp.  167  and  170.  2  Ibid.  pp.  96  and  101. 


210  SYLVAN  US   G.    MORLET 

The  opening  of  the  Third  Period  again  finds  the  Itzas  home 
less.  Instinctively,  however,  they  seemed  to  have  turned  again 
to  Chichen  Itza,  their  first  real  home  in  the  new  country,  and 
during  Katuns  6  Ahau  and  4  Ahau,  960-1000  A.D.,  they  wan 
dered  back  to  that  city  and  reoccupied  it,  somewhere  near  the 
close  of  the  tenth  century.  About  this  time,  also,  the  impor 
tant  city  of  Mayapan  seems  to  have  been  founded.  It  is 
probable  that  after  the  destruction  of  Chakanputun  some  of 
the  Itzas  did  not  return  to  Chichen  Itza,  but  wandered  elsewhere. 
One  chronicle  records  that  "  the  remaining  of  the  Itzas  com 
ing  out  of  the  woods  from  under  the  branches  .  .  .  established 
the  land  called  Zaclactun  Mayapan."1  This  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  not  all  of  the  Itzas  returned  to  Chichen  Itza,  but 
that  some  of  them  at  least  settled  elsewhere. 

There  now  began  an  era  of  great  prosperity  for  the  country. 
At  the  beginning  of  Katun  2  Ahau,  1000  A.D.,  Ahcuitok  Tutul 
Xiu,  the  leader  of  the  Xiu  or  Tutul  Xiu,  founded  Uxmal  and 
established  his  rule  there.  According  to  Bishop  Landa  these 
newcomers  were  of  a  somewhat  different  race  than  the  Itzas, 
speaking  a  language  similar  to  that  of  Tabasco.  They  seem, 
however,  to  have  been  warmly  received  by  the  Itzas,  and  an 
alliance  between  the  rulers  of  Chichen  Itza,  Uxmal,  and  Maya- 
pan  was  immediately  formed,  each  ruling  jointly  with  the  others. 
This  tripartite  confederacy  lasted  for  about  two  hundred  years, 
or  until  Katun  8  Ahau,  1200  A.D.,  w^hen  it  was  abruptly  ter 
minated  by  the  plot  of  Hunnac  Ceel,  at  that  time  the  ruler  of 
Mayapan.  This  event  must  have  been  one  of  first  importance 
in  the  ancient  history  of  Yucatan,  since  each  of  the  five  chron 
icles  mentions  it.  In  spite  of  this  fact,  however,  the  causes 
leading  to  the  disruption  of  the  confederacy  are  very  imper 
fectly  set  forth.  One  thing  alone  seems  clear  :  Chac  Xib  Chac, 
the  ruler  of  Chichen  Itza,  having  plotted  against  Hunnac  Ceel, 
the  ruler  of  Mayapan,  was  driven  from  Chichen  Itza  by  Hunnac 
Ceel  in  the  war  that  followed.  Two  of  the  chronicles  state  that 
the  trouble  arose  over  a  banquet  which  the  ruler  of  Chichen  Itza 
gave  to  Ulil,  the  ruler  of  Itzmal,  while  another  more  vaguely  re 
cords  that  it  was  "because  of  the  festivities  with  those  of  Itzmal."2 
Probably  neither  represents  the  true  cause  of  the  war,  though 

1  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  pp.  167  and  170.     2  Ibid.  pp.  155  and  160. 


THE  BOOKS   OF  CHILAN  BALAM  211 

both  indicate  that  a  plot  was  hatched  against  Hunnac  Ceel  by 
the  rulers  of  Chichen  Itza  and  Itzmal.  Hunnac  Ceel,  however, 
assisted  by  seven  other  leaders,  gained  a  decisive  victory  and 
drove  the  Itzas  from  their  city,  dispersing  their  thirteen  divi 
sions  of  warriors. 

The  names  of  Hunnac  Ceel's  seven  allies  in  this  war,  Ah 
Zinteyut  Chan,  Tzuntecum,  Taxcal,  Pantemit,  Xuchueuet,  and 
Itzcuat,  and  Kakaltecat,  are  significant.  Over  half  of  them,  as 
Dr.  Brinton  has  pointed  out,1  appear  to  be  Nahuatl.  Strange 
as  this  spectacle  of  a  Maya  ruler  surrounded  by  Nahuatl  allies 
may  appear,  it  is  corroborated  by  no  less  an  authority  than 
Bishop  Landa,  who  says  that  the  ruler  of  Mayapan  called  to  his 
aid  Mexican  allies  to  keep  his  subjects  in  check.  With  the 
plot  of  Hunnac  Ceel  and  the  dispersion  of  the  Itzas,  this  period 
closes,  960-1200  A.D. 

As  with  the  preceding  periods,  the  chronicles  are  silent  con 
cerning  its  details,  and  it  is  to  archaeology  we  are  obliged  to 
turn  for  a  reconstruction  of  the  background.  After  the  destruc 
tion  of  Chakanputun,  the  horizon  of  Maya  history  extends. 
Heretofore,  that  is,  during  the  First  and  Second  Periods,  the 
wanderings  and  adventures  of  a  single  people,  the  Itzas,  are  set 
forth  ;  but  after  this  point  the  record  enlarges.  The  Itzas,  no 
longer  a  small  tribe,  split  into  several  bands,  each  seeking  a 
different  home.  Another  people,  the  Tutul  Xiu,  at  best  only 
very  remotely  connected  with  the  Itzas,  enters  the  country  and 
colonizes  it.  New  cities  are  established.  The  record  may  be 
said  to  have  lost  its  provincial  character.  During  this  Third 
Period,  I  believe  the  Maya  civilization,  untainted  as  yet  by  any 
Nahuatl  influence,  spread  over  Yucatan.  Scores  of  settlements 
purely  Mayan  in  architecture  and  art  grew  up.  This  was 
the  Golden  Age  of  Yucatan,  the  last  great  period  of  Mayan 
supremacy.  Kabah,  Labna,  Chacmultun,  Sayil,  in  fact  most  of 
the  ruined  cities  now  found  so  abundantly  throughout-  the 
country,  date,  in  my  opinion,  from  this  period.  After  the  plot 
of  Hunnac  Ceel,  the  closing  event  of  the  Third  Period,  and  the 
introduction  by  him  of  Nahuatl  allies  into  the  country,  condi 
tions  change,  and  Maya  history  enters  its  last  great- period 
under  a  strong  foreign  stimulus. 

1  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  p.  129. 


212  SYLVANUS  G.   MORLEY 

The  war  which  resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  Chac  Xib  Chac 
of  Chichen  Itza  lasted,  according  to  one  chronicle,  for  fourteen 
years,  ending  some  time  in  Katun  6  Ahau,  1220-1240  A.D.  In 
the  following  katun,  4  Ahau,  the  Itzas  and  Itzmalans,  as  a 
retaliation  for  their  previous  defeat,  raided  the  land  of  Maya- 
pan  and  seized  the  capital.  The  first  fifty  years  of  the  Fourth 
Period  were  probably  taken  up  with  civil  war  and  the  read 
justment  of  power  made  necessary  by  the  breaking  up  of  the 
confederacy.  Who  succeeded  to  the  supreme  authority  for 
merly  held  jointly  by  the  rulers  of  Chichen  Itza,  Uxmal,  and 
Mayapan,  the  chronicles  do  not  state.  Bishop  Landa,  however, 
says  that  the  chief  power  was  held  by  the  Lords  of  Mayapan, 
who  abused  their  position  to  such  an  extent  that  they  were 
obliged  to  call  in  Mexican  mercenaries  to  protect  them  against 
the  rising  indignation  of  their  subjects.  Finally  there  came  a 
day  when  the  outraged  Mayas  could  no  longer  endure  this 
tyranny,  and  under  the  leadership  of  Tutul  Xiu,  the  Lord  of 
Uxmal,  they  assassinated  their  ruler  and,  after  sacking  the  city 
of  Mayapan,  abandoned  it.  The  chronicles,  for  the  most  part, 
agree  that  Mayapan  was  destroyed  some  time  during  Katun  8 
Ahau,  or  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  rea 
sons  given  for  this  upheaval  are  rather  vague :  "  because  of  the 
seizure  of  the  fortress  and  the  fortified  town  by  the  joint  gov 
ernment  in  the  city  of  Mayapan."1  This  can  hardly  refer  to 
anything  but  the  destruction  of  Chichen  Itza  by  Hunnac  Ceel 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  before,  though  the  hatred  engen 
dered  by  that  event,  it  would  seem,  should  have  subsided  long 
before  the  time  we  are  now  considering.  The  account  of  this 
event  in  one  of  the  chronicles,  however,  the  second  from  The 
Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Chumayel,  agrees  somewhat  with  the 
version  given  by  Bishop  Landa :  "  There  went  forth  the  gov 
ernor  Tutul  with  the  chiefs  of  the  country;  ...  in  this  katun 
the  men  in  the  centre  of  the  town  were  driven  out,  and  the 
chiefs  of  the  country  lost  their  power."2  After  the  destruc 
tion  of  Mayapan  the  country  was  split  up  into  a  number  of 
petty  chieftaincies,  and,  as  the  chronicle  literally  records,  "  the 
chiefs  of  the  country  lost  their  power."  This  event  closes  the 

1  The  Maya  Chronicles,  D.  G.  Brinton,  pp.  156  and  161. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  167  and  17  L 


THE  BOOKS  OF  CIIILAN  BALAM  213 

Fourth  Historic  Period  of  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  1200- 
1450  A.D.  or  thereabouts. l 

This  period  was  not,  I  believe,  one  in  which  the  Maya  influ 
ence  was  dominant,  but,  on  the  contrary,  one  during  which 
Maya  ideals  gave  way  before  Nahuatl  pressure.  At  Chichen 
Itza,  for  example,  there  are  several  structures  which  are  strongly 
Nahuatl  in  plan  or  decoration.  The  "  Ball  Court,"  typically  a 
Nahuatl  conception,  has  been  found  surely  up  to  the  present  time 
in  only  two  Maya  cities,  Chichen  Itza  and  Uxmal.  Professor 
Seler  and  Dr.  Spinden  have  both  pointed  out  several  other  un 
deniable  traces  of  Nahuatl  influence  at  Chichen  Itza.  How 
then  did  this  Nahuatl  influence  reach  a  Maya  city  in  the  first 
place,  and  why  should  Chichen  Itza  have  been  the  place  where 
this  influence  was  most  strongly  felt  ? 

I  suggest  that  the  answers  to  both  of  these  questions  are  to 
be  found  in  the  chronicles.  Hunnac  Ceel's  association  with 
Nahuatl  allies,  and  the  subsequent  settlement  of  these  allies  in 
Yucatan,  a  fact  actually  mentioned  by  Bishop  Landa,  disposes 
of  the  first.  The  following  answer  to  the  second  is  only  sug 
gested;  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Chichen  Itza  is  the  only 
Maya  city  where  Nahuatl  influence  strongly  coerced  the  art, 
and  since  the  chronicles  develope  a  reason  for  this,  the  correct 
ness  of  the  answer  becomes  more  probable.  After  the  defeat  of 
Chac  Xib  Chac  by  Hunnac  Ceel  and  the  dispersion  of  the  Itzas, 
I  believe  it  not  unlikely  that  the  ruler  of  Mayapan  may  have 
given  Chichen  Itza  to  his  Nahuatl  allies  as  their  share  of  the 
spoils.  Their  direction  of  the  affairs  of  the  conquered  Maya 
city  would  have  introduced  sufficient  Nahuatl  pressure  to  have 
influenced  subsequent  activities,  and  there  would  have  resulted 
conditions  such  as  are  actually  found.  A  strong  culture  like 
the  Maya,  however,  would  not  have  succumbed  entirely  even  to 
such  a  dominant  influence  as  the  Nahuatl,  and  consequently  a 
compromise  would  be  effected  by  which  the  conquerors  gave 
much  but  received  more. 

1  The  discrepancy  between  the  Maya  time  periods  and  the  corresponding 
dates  in  Christian  chronology  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  Maya  katun  in 
reality  is  only  19f  years  long,  whereas  in  the  present  discussion  it  has  been 
treated  as  a  period  of  20  years,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  calculations.  This 
causes  an  error  of  16  years  in  a  period  of  55  katuns,  the  number  said  to  have 
elapsed  from  the  occupation  of  Bakhalal  to  the  Spanish  Conquest,  the  whole  of 
which  has  been  corrected  at  this  point. 


214 


SYLVAN  US   G.    MORLEY 


With  the  destruction  of  Mayapan,  all  semblance  of  concen 
trated  power  vanished.  All  the  sources,  native  as  well  as 
Spanish,  agree  unanimously  that  after  this  event  the  country 
fell  upon  evil  days.  A  pestilence,  "  the  general  death,"  devas 
tated  the  country  in  Katun  4  Ahau,  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  carrying  off  great  numbers,  and  in  the  following 
Katun  2  Ahau,  during  the  first  two  decades  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  small-pox  swept  over  the  land,  claiming  thousands  of 
victims.  Coincident  with  these  calamities  civil  war  broke  out. 
With  the  fall  of  Mayapan,  the  last  vestige  of  central  authority 
seems  to  have  been  swept  away.  The  country,  divided  into  a 
number  of  petty  divisions,  each  warring  with  the  others,  was  soon 
prostrated  by  the  horrors  of  war  and  famine.  Indeed,  so  swift 
was  this  final  phase  of  Maya  history  that  it  were  hardly  worth 
while  to  call  it  the  Fifth  Period,  though  such  it  really  was. 
Pestilence,  internecine  strife,  and  finally  foreign  conquest 
speedily  put  an  end  to  this  once  great  civilization,  the  seeds 
of  whose  downfall,  however,  had  been  sown  long  before  the 
discovery  of  America. 

SYLVANUS  GEISWOLD  MORLEY. 

SCHOOL  OF  AMERICAN  ARCHAEOLOGY, 

SANTA  FE,  NEW  MEXICO. 


Oaylord  Bros. 

Maker* 
Syracuse,  N  Y. 

PAT.  JAN.  21,  1908 


